KULWANT SINGH, MOGA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, MOGA

ITA 363/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3309 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A N MISHRA
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Onus to prove; Set aside
• Section: 44AD; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 363/ASR/2017 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 KULWANT SINGH, H. NO. 491, STREET NO. 4, DASHMESH NAGAR, MOGA [PAN: ASWPS 1192D] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MOGA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RESPONDENT BY: SH. A. N. MISHRA (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 25.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.08.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4 LUDHIANA ('C IT(A)', FOR SHORT) DATED 25.04.2017, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING HIS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DATED 24.12.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE BUSINESS OF CATTLE FEED, FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ON 26.07.2011, AT AN INCOME OF RS.1,60,000, AR RIVED AT ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS U/S. 44AD OF THE ACT. HE, NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WAS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED TO EX PLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ITA NO. 363/ASR/2017 (AY 2011-12) KULWANT SINGH V. ITO 2 THE CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.38.87 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK, G.T. ROAD, MOGA DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, DET AILED AS UNDER: DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 21.04.10 8,90,000/- 22.04.10 5,00,000/- 27.07.10 1,18,000/- 06.08.10 3,00,000/- 24.08.10 24,000/- 11.12.10 4,80,000/- 27.12.10 8,00,000/- 24.03.11 75,000/- 28.03.11 7,00,000/- THAT APART, CREDITS IN HIS SAID BANK ACCOUNT AT A T OTAL OF RS.9.20 LACS BY WAY OF FUNDS TRANSFERRED DURING APRIL, 2010, WERE ALSO ENQ UIRED INTO. THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE EXPLAINED AS ARISING PRINCIPALLY OUT OF THE AD VANCE OF RS.15 LACS AGAINST SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY, RECEIVED FROM ONE, SH. JIT SINGH MATHARU, A RESIDENT OF GERMANY, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, AS UNDER, ADDUCING A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 15.0 4.2010: - RS.8.90 LACS ON 21.04.2010; - RS.5 LACS ON 22.04.2010 - RS.1.10 LACS ON 28.04.2010 (I.E., ALONG WITH OWN SA VINGS FOR RS.90,000). THE DEAL WAS, HOWEVER, CANCELLED AS SH. MATHARU COU LD NOT OBTAIN BANK LOAN DUE TO THE NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE MAP, AS WELL AS THE ELE CTRICAL CONNECTION BEING NOT IN THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE, SMT. SURINDER KAUR, THE ASSESSEES MOTHER. SH. MATHARU WAS ACCORDINGLY RETURNED THE ADVANCE AMOUNT (BIANA). THE SOURCE OF THE OTHER CASH DEPOSITS, I.E., BESIDES RS.15 LACS (SUPR A), WAS EXPLAINED TO BE BY WAY OF ROTATION OF FUNDS, I.E., WITHDRAWAL FROM AND REDEPO SIT OF CASH IN THE ASSESSEEES BANK ACCOUNT. AS REGARDS THE CREDITS BY WAY OF BANK TRANSFERS, THE SAME WERE FROM M/S. K.K. EXPORTS (RS.2 LACS ON 28.04.2010) AND SH. DALWINDER SINGH (RS.7.20 ITA NO. 363/ASR/2017 (AY 2011-12) KULWANT SINGH V. ITO 3 LACS, ON 28.04.2010 AND 30.04.2010). THE TRANSFERS FROM BOTH THESE ACCOUNTS WERE PRECEDED BY CASH DEPOSITS, BEING ON 22.04.2010 (AT RS.2 LACS) AND RS.7.20 LACS, IN THE ACCOUNT OF K.K. EXPORTS AND DALWINDER SINGH RES PECTIVELY. SH. DALWINDER SINGH COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AS HE WAS RESIDING IN U .K., I.E., WAS RESIDENT ABROAD, AS WAS THE CASE WITH SH. MATHARU. THE PROPERTY DEAL ER BROKING THE SALE TRANSACTION ALSO COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AS HE WAS NOT KNOWN TO T HE ASSESSEE, BUT TO SH. MATHARU ONLY. THE EXPLANATION DID NOT FIND ACCEPTAN CE AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF BOTH THE CREDITORS, THE STATED SOURCE OF THE DEPOSI TS, COULD NOT BE PROVED, AND WHICH ALSO IMPINGED ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN APPEAL WHICH, THOUGH ADMITT ED, WERE AGAIN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS ESTABLISHING ONLY THE IDENTITY (O F THE CREDITORS) AND NOT THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS OR CAPACITY AND, THUS, THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS, WHICH WERE THUS CONFIRMED AT THE AMOUNT A DDED IN THEIR RESPECT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), I.E., RS.23.10 LACS, I.E., AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME, AS UNDER: DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 21.04.10 8,90,000/- 22.04.10 5,00,000/- 28.04.10 4,00,000/- 28.04.10 2,00,000/- 30.04.10 3,20,000/- TOTAL 23,10,000/- 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RESPONDENT, AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES. THE FIRST OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER IS THAT M/S. K .K. EXPORTS IS THE ASSSESSEES PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND, THUS, HIS OWN ACCOUNT. IT IS THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2 LACS ON 22.04.2010 IN THIS ACCOUNT WHICH STAND S TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEES SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT (WITH HDFC BANK) ON 28.04.2010 . ITA NO. 363/ASR/2017 (AY 2011-12) KULWANT SINGH V. ITO 4 THE SECOND OBSERVATION IS THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT R EGARDED AS UNEXPLAINED STANDS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT IN APRIL, 2010, AND THE CASH DEPOSITS DURING THE SUBSEQUENT MONTHS, AT RS.24.97 LACS IN AGGREGATE (REFER TABLE AT PARA 2 ABOVE), HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED BY THE AO AS THE ASSESSEES INCOME OSTENSIBLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN RE- DEPOSITED, I.E., UPON WITHDRAWAL. THERE IS HOWEVER NO FINDING BY EITHER THE ASSESSING OR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THIS REGARD. THIS, EVEN OTHERWISE RELEVANT, IS P ARTICULARLY SO AS A SUBSTANTIAL SUM (RS.15 LACS), EXPLAINED AS RECEIVED FROM SH. MATHAR U, IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN REPAID BACK TO HIM ON THE CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON 30.04.2010, SO THAT THE SAME WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR REDEPO SIT. LIKEWISE, RS.2.30 LACS IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BACK BY THE ASSESSEE TO HI S BROTHER, SH. DALWINDER SINGH, SO THAT THIS SUM COULD AGAIN BE NO LONGER REGARDED AS IN CIRCULATION. THE MATTER IS EVEN OTHERWISE FACTUAL IN-AS-MUCH AS IT IS THE ONLY UPON WITHDRAWAL THAT AN AMOUNT COULD BE REDEPOSITED, FOR WHICH NO BASIS STANDS STA TED. THIS IS A WITHDRAWAL WOULD NORMALLY BE ONLY FOR A PURPOSE, SO THAT THE EXPLANA TION ASSUMES VALIDITY WHERE THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE WITHDRAWAL IS NOT MET. I AM C ONSCIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER, NOT MAINTAINING ACCOUNTS, SO THAT IT MAY BE THAT THE WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR MAKING PURCHASES, WHILE THE CREDITS RE PRESENT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THOSE GOODS, QUA WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED BUSINESS INCOME. A S SUCH, THERE IS MERIT IN THE AO NOT INCLUDING THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSI TS IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME. WHAT, HOWEVER, IS SOUGHT TO BE EMPHASIZED IS THAT, CONSIDERED EITHER WAY, IT IS ONLY THE DEPOSITS SUBSEQUENT TO THE WITHDRAWALS AND TO THAT EXTENT, WHICH COULD BE EXPLAINED THUS, WHICH MATTER IS FACTUAL, WITH THE A SSESSEE HAVING IN FACT REPAID A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE IMPUGNED CREDITS, ADMITTEDL Y AT RS.17.30 LACS. THIS ASPECT THEREFORE NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED. COMING, NEXT, TO THE MERITS OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLA NATION. CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEES BROTHER WAS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR PLANNING TO GO ABROAD (AND ITA NO. 363/ASR/2017 (AY 2011-12) KULWANT SINGH V. ITO 5 WHICH HE FINALLY DOES IN MARCH, 2011), AND THE ASSE SSEES MOTHER, THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY, STATED TO BE NOT HAVING ANY BANK AC COUNT, THERE IS NOTHING AMISS OR UNTOWARD IN THE DEPOSIT OF THE ADVANCE RECEIPT (ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY) IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. WHAT, HOWEVER, IS SURPRISI NG IS THAT THE AGREEMENT, INVOLVING AN EXCHANGE OF RS.15 LACS IN CASH, DOES N OT BEAR ANY INDEPENDENT WITNESS, AS FOR EXAMPLE THE PROPERTY DEALER BROKING THE DEAL, EVEN WHOSE NAME HAS NOT BEEN SPELLED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, EVEN AS THE W ITNESSES ARE GENERALLY UNRELATED PARTIES, HAVING NO INTEREST IN THE TRANSACTION. THE BROKER, OR EVEN THE PAYMENT TO HIM (FOR HIS COMMISSION/BROKERAGE), IS ALSO CONSPIC UOUS BY ITS ABSENCE. THE AGREEMENT, RATHER, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE RE GISTERING AUTHORITY. WHY, AGAIN, IT IS WONDERED, IS THE PAYMENT NOT MADE THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL? FURTHER, THE AMOUNT IS NOT DEPOSITED IN BANK IN ONE GO, AS WOULD NORMALLY BE THE CASE, BUT IN INSTALLMENTS, I.E., RS.8.90 LACS; RS.5 LACS; AND RS .1.10 LACS, THE FIRST OF WHICH ITSELF IS QUIZZICALLY ABOUT A WEEK AFTER THE DATE OF THE A GREEMENT. FURTHER, THE LAST STANDS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ACCOUNT, WHICH IS AGAIN SURPRISING AS THE AMOUNT WAS ADMITTEDLY LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE UNDER TRUST, I.E., TILL THE DEAL FRUCTIFIED/MATURED. WHAT, AGAIN, EXPLAINS THE PAYME NT OF RS.8.90 LACS TO THE INTENDING BUYER, SH. J.S. MATHARU, ON THE CANCELLAT ION OF THE AGREEMENT? IN FACT, THE PAYMENT IS BY CHEQUE, CLEARED ON 30.04.2010, TH E STATED DATED OF THE CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS AGAIN UNEVI DENCED, SO THAT THE CHEQUE WAS APPARENTLY ISSUED ONLY EARLIER. THAT IS, WHY WOULD HE ACCEPT ONLY PART PAYMENT ON CANCELLATION? IN FACT, THE AMOUNT COINCIDES WITH TH AT DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT ON 21.04.2010, MAKING THE TWO TRANSACTIONS QUIZZICAL. IF HE COULD RECEIVE BACK THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE/S; THE BALANCE RS. 6.10 LACS BEING APPARENTLY RETURNED ON 19.05.2010, HE COULD AS WELL HAVE BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE/S, MENTIONING THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT/S IN THE AGREEMENT. THER E IS THEREFORE NO REASON FOR SH. MATHARU TO PAY CASH TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AVAILABILI TY OF WHICH WITH HIM AT THE ITA NO. 363/ASR/2017 (AY 2011-12) KULWANT SINGH V. ITO 6 RELEVANT TIME ASSUMES SIGNIFICANCE AS HE HAD ONLY R ECENTLY COME TO INDIA FROM GERMANY. THE REASONS STATED FOR THE CANCELLATION AR E, AGAIN, SPECIOUS. A MAP WOULD BE REQUIRED, OR NECESSARILY SO, IN CASE OF A FRESH CONSTRUCTION, AND NOT FOR PURCHASING AN EXISTING PROPERTY BEARING A MUNICIPAL NUMBER. TWO, AN ELECTRIC CONNECTION DOES NOT INDICATE OWNERSHIP, WHICH IS EV IDENT FROM THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT IN THE NAME OF SMT. SURINDER KAUR, THE OWNER, I.E., ASSUMING THAT THE CONNECTION WAS NOT IN HER NAME. THE SAME COULD BE TRANSFERRED, OR APPLIED FOR AFRESH. THE UNTENABILITY OF THE REASONS (FOR CANCELLATION), IT MAY BE ADDED, WOULD NOT BY ITSELF IMPLY THAT THE AGREEMENT IS NOT GENUINE, BUT SURELY ADDS TO THE DOUBT AS TO THE GENUINENESS, WHERE IT IS OTHERWISE FOUND TO BE NOT SO. WITHOUT DOUBT, IF IT COULD BE SHOWN THAT SH. JIT SINGH MATHARU DID INDEED APPLY F OR A BANK LOAN (FOR RS.15 LACS OR MORE) ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, I.E., AS STATED, WAS DENIED THE SAME, IT WOULD ADD CONSIDERABLE FORCE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE WHERE THE REPAYMENT OF RS.15 LACS IS SHOWN TO BE IN MR. MATHARUS BANK ACCOUNT. THE REPAYMENT PATTERN IS ALSO SURPRISING AS THE ASSESSEE HAD RS.19.69 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 30.04.2010, I.E., BALANCE SUFFICIENT BALANCE TO REFUND THE ENTIRE AD VANCE. HERE IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO STATE THAT IT IS NOT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 15 LACS, WH ICH IS THROUGH BANK TRANSFERS, THAT IS IN DOUBT, BUT THE CASH RECEIPT OF RS. 15 LACS BY THE ASSESSEE, THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF WHICH IS TO BE EXPLAINED, AND IS STATED T O BE AN ADVANCE FROM HIM TOWARD THE SALE OF THE ASSESSEES RESIDENCE. MR. MATHARU G OES BACK TO THE COUNTRY OF HIS RESIDENCE (GERMANY) WITHOUT APPARENTLY PURCHASING A NY HOUSE FROM THE ASSESSEE OR ANYONE ELSE. THE ASSESSEE, APPARENTLY IN NEED OF MONEY TO HAVE CONSIDERED AND ACTUALLY PROCEEDED TO SELL HIS HOUSE, A PRIME NEE D, ALSO DOES NOT SELL THE SAME TO ANYONE ELSE OR RAISE MONEY FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE/S. IT IS THIS CONDUCT, UNEXPLAINED, THAT IS MOST INTRIGUING, I.E., GIVEN THAT THE MONEY IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED TOWARD THE SALE OF HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE ASS ESSEE, I.E., ASSUMING SO. AND IT IS ITA NO. 363/ASR/2017 (AY 2011-12) KULWANT SINGH V. ITO 7 THIS THAT, APART FROM THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR BEING NOT SHOWN, RAISES DOUBTS AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEES BROTHER PLANNING TO GO ABROAD (U.K.) , WHICH REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE MONEY, IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE FAMILY CONTEMPLATED SALE OF ITS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS ONE OF THE MEANS OF RAISING MO NEY, DIVIDING THE SALE PROCEEDS BETWEEN THE TWO BROTHERS, ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE N O MORE SIBLINGS. HOWEVER, AS ANY PRUDENT PERSON WOULD AND, RATHER, AS A COROLLAR Y, THE FAMILY WOULD MAKE ALTERNATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ITS RESIDENCE. AN ADVAN CE FOR THE PURPOSE, OR AN APPLICATION FOR BANK LOAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, FOR WHICH IT HAD TIME UP TO 22.07.2010, WOULD THUS BE A CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IT IS, ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASS ESSEES BROTHER WHO FUNDS HIM, SUGGESTING SURPLUS MONEY WITH HIM. THE SOURCE OF TH IS WAS EXPLAINED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO BE THE SALE PROCEEDS OF TH E GOODS, I.E., ON THE WINDING UP OF HIS BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEES BROTHER, ADDUCING FINAL ACCOUNTS OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN, M/S. EXCEL COMPUTER PERIPHERALS. THE SAME WERE NOT REGARDED AS AUTHENTIC BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE SAME WERE NOT AU DITED. WHAT WOULD, TO MY MIND, BE MORE RELEVANT IS THE PROVING OF THE EXISTE NCE OF THE BUSINESS OF DALWINDER SINGH, I.E., PRIOR TO LEAVING THE COUNTRY. IT IS IN FACT THIS THAT HAS BEEN FOUND AS NOT PROVED BY THE SAID DOCUMENT (FINAL ACCOUNTS) BY THE LD. CIT(A) (REFER PARA 5.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER). THIS IS ONLY UNDERSTANDABLE. T O BEGIN WITH, SURPRISINGLY, NO SUCH INFORMATION WAS GIVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, EVEN AS THE AO WAS OF THE CLEAR VIEW THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEES MON EY, BEING ROUTED THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS BROTHER. THE MONEY, AGAIN, IS NOT DE POSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM, M/S. EXCEL COMPUTER PERIPHERALS, BUT IN T HE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETOR. AS IT APPEARS, THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, W HICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A RUNNING ACCOUNT, STANDS DULY INCORPORATED IN THE FI NAL ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID CONCERN, EXISTENCE OF WHICH AS A RUNNING CONCERN, I.E., PRIO R APRIL, 2010, COULD BE PROVED BY ITA NO. 363/ASR/2017 (AY 2011-12) KULWANT SINGH V. ITO 8 A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS/INCIDENTS. IF IT IS SO, AS FO R EXAMPLE THE TAX RETURNS OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHER, REFLECTING TURNOVER OF, INCOME FROM, ETC. THE SAID BUSINESS; TRADE REGISTRATION; ACCOUNTS OF TRADE PARTIES AGREEING WI TH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED FOR THE SAID BUSINESS AS WELL REFLECTING THE WINDING OF THE SAID BUSINESS, ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS, THERE WOULD HA RDLY BE ANY CASE TO DOUBT THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO BROTHERS. IT IS OPEN F OR THE REVENUE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH TRANSACTIONS, WHICH APPEAR TO BE BY WAY OF CASH SALES, BUT NOT DISMISS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OUTRIGHT, FOR WHIC H THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IS TO BE THOUGH LED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT THE BROTH ER WENT ABROAD (MARCH, 2011), WHICH WOULD ENTAIL FUNDS, SO THAT HE WOULD CARRY TH E SAME RATHER THAN GIFT HIS BROTHER, RAISES A DOUBT, AND IT IS THIS THAT IMPELS THE STATED VERIFICATION. THE THIRD COMPONENT OF THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS IS A S UM OF RS. 0.90 LACS, ASCRIBED TO SAVINGS, DEPOSITED IN BANK ON 28/4/2010 . THOUGH PROBABLE, NO BASIS FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN STATED, VIZ. THE ASSESSEES INCOM E FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS, WHICH WOULD, EITHER GET CONSUMED ON PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OR DEPLOYED IN BUSINESS ASSETS. THE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CASE OF AN ADDITIO N U/S. 69/69A IS ON THE REVENUE, WHICH STANDS DISCHARGED ON THE BASIS OF TH E CASH DEPOSITS/CREDITS FOUND IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. THE MATTER, ACCORDINGL Y, FOR FACTUAL DETERMINATION, IS, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT AFTER ALLO WING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD THE ISSUE BEING PRINCIPA LLY FACTUAL. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ONUS TO PROVE HIS CLAIMS IS ON THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN, WE MAY ADD THAT THE ADDITION, IF ANY, THAT MAY THOUGH BE SUSTAINED IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, BEING TOWARD SUBSTANTIATION OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS, WOULD NOT EXCEED THE QUANTUM DETERMINED, BEING RS. 23.10 LACS, I.E., FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 363/ASR/2017 (AY 2011-12) KULWANT SINGH V. ITO 9 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT ON AUGUST 31, 2018 SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 31.08.2018 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: KULWANT SINGH, H. NO. 491, S TREET NO. 4, DASHMESH NAGAR, MOGA (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MOGA (3) THE CIT(APPEALS)-4 LUDHIANA (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T TRUE COPY BY ORDER